Mugen

No, Templars are a different order of warrior-monks.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, though I would certainly assign the same cost for each sorcery spell beyond the first. This would also solve a problem with the experienced characters creation rules, where "master" Sorcerers or priests begin with the same number of spells as a newbie...

You're right, there are no such rules in RQ3 except for POW. It seems that I made a wrong assumption 20 years ago and never took the time to read the rule again

Really ? In my memory, both condition applied. That is, a human with an original DEX of 10 could not get a DEX higher than 15, and an other one with an original DEX of 18 could only reach 21. I never read RQ2, so there can be no confusion here.

I voted Renaissance Europe, with Italia in mind. I'd be very excited by a game about power struggles between noble houses and between cities. I'd also like a game about Dark Ages, either Brittanic or Continental.

Yes, and that is a major difference with D&D-like spells, which can hardly be described as "open". I was 12, expecting something, and got something else I was not old enough to like... Note that rules for runes were available in a supplement (Demon Magic, I think), but I never used these.

Personnally, my first gaming sessions were around 1985 with a french RPG called "MEGA" (a game in which you played "dimension walkers agents", with percentile skills and a clumsy combat system). My father was the Game Master, which means I was one of the very few 2nd generation roleplayers of that time... My first RPG was the "Mentzer" red box D&D, quickly followed by AD&D : the red box was a gift for my birthday in July 1986, and I bought both PHB and DMG in august : MM was not available in french at that time, and was delayed so many times that I finally bought it in english... My first interest in BRP came from an article in french magazine Casus Belli about StormBringer and Call of Cthulhu and StormBringer scenarios. I bought StormBringer. I was quite impressed by the class-less system, but I was disappointed by the lack of dwarves, elves and spells : I was still a 12 years old kid... I found all those "lacking" elements in RQ3 in 1988 (for my 13th birthday), but didn't really catch Glorantha : I was too young to understand supplements like "Gods of Glorantha" and "Glorantha:Crucible of the Hero Wars"...

I didn't understand there was more than one Grimoire skill (but I still have to find a copy of the rulebook...). Honestly, this is a fantastic idea, as it both fit Gloranthan sorcery (as depicted in HeroQuest) ans well as Classical D&D like magic, and it allows GMs to design their own list of Sorcery skills...

My first contact with RPG were through a french gaming magazine in 1980 at ages 5. For obvious reason, I was more interested in the miniatures photographs than in the text... My first experience was at age 9 or 10, in 1984 or 1985 (with a french RPG published in a special issue of the magazine mentionned above), but I truly became an avid player at age 11. I began with D&D and AD&D like huge portion of the roleplayer population, but quickly switched to StormBringer, seduced by its "realistic" flavor, and then to RQ3.

I know that, mathetically speaking, roll low is interesting. But yet, the method doesn't sound right to me. I don't like the idea that if A (the character with the highest skill) 's roll falls between B's skill and his own skill and B succeeds at his skill roll, advantage is given to B. I mean, the range between both skills reflects A's better mastery of the situation, and in such a case it sounds like a disadvantage to him : if he succeeded because of the things he knows and B doesn't, the final word is given to B. Note that I do know that A still has a better chance of success than B, even with roll low. It's only a psychological point of view...

I don't know if it is the same in other countries, but in France the biggest problem of BRP is that people only know it through Call of Cthulhu. AFAIK, the biggest complaints are : *Very limited impact of characteristics on skills; *Mortality; *Boring combat; *The 1-100 scale. All aspects which have been addressed in an incarnation of BRP or another... I even saw some people describing James Bond 007 resolution system as genius and criticizing BRP...

Actually, this is called EW-System

Latest edition (at least, the one that has been translated in french) of the Spanish RPG "Aquelarre" uses a variant of BRP in which "light" weapons use DEX to determine damage bonus instead of STR. D&D 3.5 Finesse only adds DEX to the attack roll, but has no effect on damage, which is still determined by weapon & STR. D&D 4 has a more interesting view on the subject : the general rule is to use the same stat to hit and for damage. That is a Fighter will typically use STR as a bonus for attack and damage roll, a Rogue will use DEX for both, a Cleric its WISdom and a Wizard its INT. In BRP, this would lead to 3 or 4 different damage bonuses, with INT and/or POW for magical attacks. An other way would be to use the 10s of the attack roll as base damage (counting criticals as 10), and then add a bonus depending on the weapon. This means considering that the skill roll is a global measure of the attack effectiveness, and not only of its accuracy.

Do you plan on translating the optional rules for combat also ?

Note that it is not difficult to use an HeroQuest-like mechanism with 1d10 instead of 1d20.

First, I have to say I like Chaot's minimal system Now, about the balance in characteristics, the problem is when you try to use a pure point distribution method... APP never makes you good at fighting or magic, which makes it a less appealing characteristic than others. There are even times when being handsome or gorgeous is a disadvantage (remember James Bood RPG ?)... Also, SIZ is used to compute both Damage Bonus and Hit Points whereas the CON and STR only affect one. Of course, SIZ won't help you resist poisons or bend bars, but that's another problem... In the end, a "fighter"-type character will have to juggle with 4 stats to optimize his fighting capacities, whereas a magician-type will simply maximize INT and POW, minimize STR and spend remaining points according to his likings. That is why I stopped using point distribution methods in BRP some times ago

As far as I remember, the RQ3 rule is a bit more complex than that: *with 1 Weapon (either 1 handed or 2 handed) : you cannot use twice the same action with your weapon. That is : you can attack and parry, attack and dodge or parry and dodge, but not attack twice or parry twice. I don't remember if 2 dodges are allowed... *with 2 Weapons (a shield being considered as a weapon) : it is possible to attack or parry once with each weapon. That is, if I have a Broadsword and a shield, I can parry twice : once with the shield, and once with the sword.

I'm not saying it is a bad rule : I use it with every weapon And, as a matter of fact, Riposte doesn't sound so elegant to me, as french is my native language.

Personnally, I always modelled Shields as weapons with a low damage and high Armour Point value, and parry as a reduction of damage done by the attack. It makes sense however to say that it is easier to put a Hoplite Shield between you and your opponent's weapon than a dagger. The solution of giving a free attack after a parry by a shield is not satisfying to me. I mean, this would fit very well in a "Swashbuckling" setting where Main gauche are used instead of shields

What is the point of averaging the STR+SIZ total here ? Using the sum and increasing the bonus by one every 4 will be as good There is a big problem when using both rules together. A critical hit from an experienced swordman (90%+ skill) will hit randomly any body part. A critical hit from somebody that never learned how to use a sword (say, 25% skill) will hit either the head or an arm of its opponent. As is, it doesn't make sense.

What about the following rules tweak ? Characteristics scale : "Trash" NPCs : 4 to 8 "low level" PCs and NPCs : 10 to 20 Important PCs and NPCs : 20 to 30 Derived characteristics : Hit Points : equal to CON Number of actions per turn (including defenses and reactions) : DEX/10 Optionally: Base Melee damage : (STR+SIZ)/6 in D6 (modified by weapon) Base Ranged damage : (DEX+INT)/6 in D6 (modified by weapon) It could also be possible to use "Healing surge"-like rules : allow one to spend Magic points to get Hit Points back.

Personnally, I don't like rules that gives different mechanics to different characters depending on their "type". If I had to tweak BRP in order to have very resistant PCs and very "weak" NPCs, I would rather play on the characteristics scale than give different formulae for hit points. If my average PC has CON 30 (which means super-resistant ones could reach 45 or more) and my common "mook" NPC CON 4, fights outcome will not be the same than with standard RuneQuest 3 or Call of Cthulhu characters. I also like Hero Points, if they are not restricted to the PC and specific NPCs can have some.

I never heard of any french background material for Elric or StormBringer, but french Hawkmoon setting and 1st edition rules for scientific creations were truly awesome.

You know, one of the most recurrent complaint I heard about D&D 3.x is that it cannot be played without miniatures because of AoOs The same could be said about Warhammer FRP (at least in its 1st edition, I never read 2nd edition), whose combat rules were designed with movement rules suited for (Citadel ?) minis. But I never heard anyone complain about this.

I'm also against the idea of 100% as a limit for skill values. I think characters with more than 50% chance to succeed at very difficult tasks should exist, even outside of "super heroic" settings. I think this idea is mostly encountered in "roll-under" systems. Would you ask a maximum skill bonus of +100 in RoleMaster, +20 in D&D or +10 in Ars Magica ?